Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

M4 Mac mini's efficiency

jeffgeerling.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 632 posts

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#421

Post by kamranjon »

Rohansi wrote: post #407
kamranjon wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Video Editing. Backend and Frontend development utilizing docker containers. Just browsing the web with tons of tabs. Streaming video while doing other stuff in the background. Honestly most things I'd rather do on my M1.

So probably nothing that actually needs more than 16GB of RAM then. And realistically comparing M1 to an i7 several years older than it. Having more RAM doesn't increase memory bandwidth and having more memory bandwidth doesn't necessarily mean better performance. You aren't even able to make use of all of the bandwidth your M1 is capable of in the real world [1]. Apple Silicon has good perf/watt but the gap probably…

When did I say having more RAM increased memory bandwidth? Are you having a separate conversation with yourself right now? I feel like you might have misinterpreted what I originally said and just ran with it.

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#422

Post by kamranjon »

prmoustache wrote: post #418
kamranjon wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm talking about memory bandwidth - maybe your workloads don't take advantage of that but most do and that's why apple designed their new chips to take advantage of it.

Bandwidth doesn't replace size, these are orthogonal parameters.

I never said it did.

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#423

Post by leptons »

nl wrote: post #317
leptons wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The Mac mini M4 performance is around 4-5x in DaVinci Resolve for me - compared to my HP laptop (i5-1135G7). You could pick a variety of non Apple CPUs that easily deliver 4-5x the performance of an 11th gen i5. Maybe don't be disingenous and compare the M4 to a more recent CPU like i5-14600K, which is also 4x the performance. I'm not comparing on power efficiency, since that was not mentioned at all as part of your…

It's not disingenuous to do a real-world comparison to a system you already own when stating the specs. It's actually much more useful to hear these real world anecdotes than to look at geekbench numbers.

It's comparing apples to oranges. If you want to compare computers, compare a macbook with an old i5 to your laptop with an old i5. Comparing an M4 to an old i5 is just silly. Of course it's going to be faster.

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#424

Post by zimpenfish »

nl wrote: post #313
GeekyBear wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beelink has dropped the price for a roughly comparable unit with an Intel Core Ultra from 800 US Dollars to $700. https://www.bee-link.com/products/beelink-sei14-ultra5-125h

This is the best answer. The Beelink (and other mini-PC brands) offer comparable performance. The fact they offer lots of different configurations lets you choose your own trade-offs. Assuming you don't have an operating system preference, the base model Mac Mini is tough to beat outright, but as you upgrade it there are other options that get interesting.

> The Beelink (and other mini-PC brands) offer comparable performance.

[0] has the new (base!) M4 at 3859 (single) and 14837 (multi) whilst [1] has the Ultra 5 125H 4500 at ~2200 (single) and ~11500 (multi). "comparable" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your sentence.

[0] https://arstechnica.com/apple/2024/11/review-the-fastest-of-...

[1] https://browser.geekbench.com/search?q=Ultra+5+125H

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#425

Post by hoppp »

nextos wrote: post #9

I use Linux, but I think the cheapest M4 Mini offers an incredible value and efficiency per €. With education discount, it's around €650, including VAT. It's pretty hard to find such a silent and powerful machine for that little. Any comparable options? A good fanless build with a i3-14100T is more expensive and 40-50% slower on Geekbench. An i5 is a bit closer. Some 2024 Ryzen CPUs can match or exceed its multicore…

There is a linux for apple silicon called ashani linux.

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#426

Post by freetime2 »

seanarnold wrote: post #414

Worth noting the base model only has 1Gb ethernet, not 10Gb as mentioned in the blog.

> And the system I bought includes 10 Gigabit Ethernet and 32 GB of RAM

I thought it was pretty clear from "the system I bought" that he was not talking about the base model. And I think $100 for 10 GbE is surprisingly reasonable for an upgrade from Apple. For comparison, 10 GbE Thunderbolt adapters typically cost about $200 - and while 10 GbE PCIe cards can be bought for less, they tend to be much less power efficient and generate a surprising amount of heat.

I actually think it's very commendable that Apple even gives the option to upgrade to 10 GbE on a mass market desktop. I was recently looking to buy a non-Apple Mini PC, and while 2.5 GbE is very common now, 10 GbE is still relatively rare. The options I found were to go with a Minisforum MS-01, which is considerably more expensive than the base M4 Mac Mini w/10 GbE upgrade, or to order something slightly sketchy from Aliexpress. So as soon as Apple announced the new M4 Mac Mini, I went with that instead.

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#427

Post by jbverschoor »

dansky wrote: post #330
mamp wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When do you turn it off? I have a Mac M1 Studio and I just let it sleep. If things get weird I reboot. I think I recall using the power button about a year ago after returning from vacation after I had shut it down.

Right now I mount up to 7 HDDs to the Mac via SMB, have some Streamdeck / Pedal and the necessary external SSDs for fast storage connected. I will see if the SMB mounts come back OK after sleep (my laptop acts as server) but the Streamdeck and HDDs wake up randomly so overall it's easier to switch everything on and off depending on usage.

Stop underwear off complaining about the mini, you should complain at streamdeck

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#428

Post by afavour »

derefr wrote: post #395
atonse wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jobs and Ive had their head scratchers. Like the Magic Mouse with the bottom charging port, or the Cube with all its cables coming in from the bottom.

The GP's same argument also applies to the Magic Mouse, as it happens: > It's a way of signaling how the product should be used. In the Magic Mouse's case, it came out just on the cusp of wireless mice becoming "a thing." Most people, if they were allowed , would have just left the mouse tethered to a computer by its charging cable at all times, since that's what they were used to. But Apple thought you'd be happier…

> it made charging annoying and flow-breaking enough that people would put it off as long as possible — which would make people realize that the Magic Mouse's battery lasted for weeks on a charge

At a certain point this just reads like Apple apologia. They made a mouse you can’t use while it’s charging as a means to advertise how long the battery lasts? What?

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#429

Post by jillesvangurp »

henryfjordan wrote: post #141
1-6 wrote: post #45

“If only they didn't put the power button on the bottom.” While I think Apple was off the rocker on this particular decision, I do respect their org structure that allows this type of decision to occur. Believe me, there are companies where a dozen people or more would weigh in and prevent an unpopular choice. Consensus sometimes hinders a desired result (both good and bad).

It's a way of signaling how the product should be used. Plug it in, hit the power button, put it down, and never turn it off again. For many users that's probably the only time they will ever interact with that button (or want to). I actually think it's a really good choice and shows Apple really understands design. And with the relatively low power consumption it makes sense. It's not like it's drawing a ton of powe…

Exactly; it's more of a reset button. You should not need it a lot.

Re: M4 Mac mini's efficiency

#430

Post by freetime2 »

rgovostes wrote: post #22

> If only they didn't put the power button on the bottom. I can't tell if anyone is being serious about the "Powergate" issue. The thing is 5" wide and weighs 1.5 lbs, it's not exactly a burden to lift it a little. And there are highly practical workarounds: https://www.reddit.com/r/macmini/comments/1gncek7/nailed_the...

> The thing is 5" wide and weighs 1.5 lbs, it's not exactly a burden to lift it a little.

It's the difference between being able to hit the button one-handed or needing two hands. My Mac Mini is sitting at the back of my desk, and the power button is toward the rear end of the Mac, and I definitely find it a bit clumsy to reach back with two hands, flip it over (disturbing an wires/peripherals that might be plugged in), find the button, and press it.

> And there are highly practical workarounds

Not as practical as putting the button on the front or top.

It's certainly not a deal breaker, but I do find it mildly annoying. The ideal for me would be to have the button easily accessible on the front or top, and have it behave like other devices I use: a short press to sleep/wake, and a long press to initiate shutdown. And when I'm getting up from my desk, I could give it a quick tap to put it to sleep and lock it.

My workaround is to use a keyboard shortcut to put it to sleep, which it works fine and is not a big deal. But I still think Apple deserves a bit of mockery for this decision.

Post reply on HN